"This follow-up to the previously published article 'Ubuntu: Derivative or Fork?' takes into account most of everything that has been posted as a reaction to the first article to present a general opinion and compare them with facts derived from various resouces. You'll see that peace can be achieved between these two, and ultimately any GNU/Linux group out there."

Software and its licenses are not good or evil. They are not social, political or moral. Applying the word "freedom" to software doesn't make sense to me.

Stew, I know that I wont persuade you by saying this, but there is a whole lot of people who actually very much believe that software licenses are a social issue, starting from Free Software Foundation (http://www.fsf.org) to even Open Source Initiative (http://www.opensource.org) to alot of their followers including so many GNU/Linux users around.

Feel free to disagree, but rights and restrictions to your use of software are very much a social issue. Just think of where would this society be if everyone thought the way you do, if there was no Free Software movement in the first place. It would most likely be a Microsoft monopoly and it could have hardly turned out in any different way. In such a monopoly they would be the one controlling everything from government to the little man using his computer because nowadays practically whole world runs on computers and computer software. Their will be done, so to say. And if you think that there would always be someone coming up like Google today to threaten their monopoly think of the fact that even Google itself very much used Free Software to get where it is (GNU/Linux powered servers at the least).

So, if you think that such a monopoly has nothing to do with ethics, morality or even politics, then you must have been just teleported to this planet from who knows where and are yet to learn about Earthlings. It is exactly licenses like GNU GPL that have prevented this overwhealming monopoly to come to this fatal point and allow for freer development and use of software and information technology where millions have their say instead of just MS (and other corporations) employees.

And don't get me wrong. I'm not against corporations. I'm just against monopolies.

It is exactly licenses like GNU GPL that have prevented this overwhealming monopoly to come to this fatal point and allow for freer development and use of software and information technology where millions have their say instead of just MS (and other corporations) employees.

"Just think of where would this society be if everyone thought the way you do, if there was no Free Software movement in the first place."

You are not putting these words in my mouth.
I have nothing against open source software and I don't see how you would get that impression from my previous posts. Most of the software I have released so far was open source (few of it GPL licensed). But I have something against using the word "freedom" the way it is used by the FSF. Just because I disagree with the FSF and prefer the LGPL over GPL doesn't mean I am against freedom or open source software, so please don't try to put such words in my mouth.

Stew, I apologize for that. I shouldn't have made it sound like it was pointed putting those words in your mouth..

But you guy are now starting to confuse me by saying that you are not against freedom, but are against the way FSF uses the word freedom.. How should they be using it then?

But I think that I get it You like the more so called "pragmatic" approach of the Open Source movement, an Eric Raymond "show me the code" approach. I respect your opinion and it's not the first time I've debated with an open source supporter so if nothing else we can feel free to disagree.

I am an FSF supporter as I know the reason why FSF set out to build a GNU system, solely because of freedom. And it was GNU that was used to build linux and finally integrate the two into an usable OS called GNU/Linux, so all of this is rooted at that point and with FSF. But "who started it" matters less than the fact that I believe educating people about the importance of freedom as the central issue is in the long term better than just showing off how superior Free Software and it's development model is.

You don't need to look farther than this whole Debian vs. Ubuntu issue here. I think that the only way people are to stop complaining about Ubuntu and flameing each other about this is to understand what is behind all this and why is it the way it is. Ubuntu did what it did because it could, because it had freedom to do so. Others can do the same and derivate from Debian to achieve some other goals. The result is that everyone has the choice and most importantly the freedom to choose. That *freedom* is something that flows beneath all of this, that makes it possible, and only *not* seeing this can make people flame each other because of choices they made, because they don't agree with those choices. How can they respect their choice when they don't understand freedom.

In my opinion, open source movement has contributed to this misunderstanding of freedom by hiding the "talk of freedom" and thus detributed from educating people about freedom.

This article, among others, tries to restore this understanding in order to try and resolve a confusion and controversion. And I will continue to promote and try to educate about freedom! This is what my site is dedicated to and what the network I'm founding will be dedicated to: spreading free culture along with understanding and appreciation of freedom that makes it possible.

Stew, I know that I wont persuade you by saying this, but there is a whole lot of people who actually very much believe that software licenses are a social issue, starting from Free Software Foundation (http://www.fsf.org)

Yes, we know that their beliefs go beyond a merely technical, economic interest in software, but you have to understand that the vast majority of people don't think like them. Most people look at software as a tool or a technical curiousity and don't agree with the FSF definitions of "freedom".

Feel free to disagree, but rights and restrictions to your use of software are very much a social issue. Just think of where would this society be if everyone thought the way you do, if there was no Free Software movement in the first place

And what are these "rights" and "restrictions". Does someone have a "right" to have source code. Do these restrictions include the ability of companies to control the sale of software they produce? What you people are trying to do is put software at a higher level than any other tool and most people don't. You guys want to get "philosophical" about it.

The free software movement has been around for a long time. It didn't start with Stallman, it was around way before he came upon the scene. You can't stop free software so the hypothetical is ridiculous.

In such a monopoly they would be the one controlling everything from government to the little man using his computer because nowadays practically whole world runs on computers and computer software.

Once again a ridiculous hypothetical based on an imaginary world that wouldn't happen in a capitalist society. Microsoft can't "control" everything. There would always be others in the software market, whether it be proprietary or open source.

So, if you think that such a monopoly has nothing to do with ethics, morality or even politics, then you must have been just teleported to this planet from who knows where and are yet to learn about Earthlings.

Translation: "you must join my cult". You are laughed at....seriously.

It is exactly licenses like GNU GPL that have prevented this overwhealming monopoly to come to this fatal point and allow for freer development and use of software and information technology where millions have their say instead of just MS (and other corporations) employees.